OPINION: Khan deserves formal apology from Dal and so much more

Dalhousie University harassed and bullied one of its students, subjecting her to institutionalized racism, sexism and Islamophobia and would now like us to forget this ever happened.

But we are not ready to forget. They’d like to drop the matter, erase what just transpired, move on as if nothing happened — but something happened, something traumatic and ugly and before we can move on, there must be some institutional accountability. You are not allowed to bully a marginalized student and then reverse course without apologizing and making amends.

Masuma Khan, an Afghan-Canadian, Muslim, hijab-wearing student at Dal, displayed incredible strength and resilience by being elected vice-president of the Dalhousie Student Union and expressing solidarity with the Indigenous peoples of Canada by supporting a motion against participating in Canada 150 celebrations.

Like others, she believes that the history of genocide and oppression that Indigenous peoples have faced and continue to face at the hands of this nation-state, Canada, leaves little to celebrate and more to reflect on.

In supporting this motion, Khan was doing an upright, self-critical, and accountable thing. The motion prompts us to ask: “How do we, each of us, take responsibility for being complicit in oppressions carried out in our names, as citizens of this country?”

For this, she was subjected to harassment and abuse from her fellow students and strangers, most often white, who somehow saw themselves as unique victims. In response to the hatred and anger directed at her, Khan finally responded on her personal Facebook page,

“At this point, f*** you all … I stand by the motion I put forward. I stand by Indigenous students. … Be proud of this country? For what, over 400 years of genocide?”

She signed off with the hashtags #unlearn150, #whitefragilitycankissmyass, and #yourwhitetearsarentsacredthislandis.

Michael Smith, a white male graduate student at Dal, felt himself personally attacked by the very free speech that white men champion so vehemently until it hurts their feelings. He filed a formal complaint against Khan in response to her post, and in an ostentatious display of his privilege, published an op-ed in a national newspaper complaining about Khan.

Instead of protecting her rights to free speech, Dal decided to behave according to a long tradition of white supremacy, silencing and sanctioning the brown, Muslim woman, while insisting on the rights of a fragile white man.

First, Dal rebuked Khan by asking her to accept counselling and to write a reflective essay that would amount to an apology. They decided that despite being a Historically White Institution (HWI), they were qualified to teach a brown, Muslim woman about how best to react to racism, sexism and Islamophobia. Their rebuke to Khan was meant to humiliate and silence her, to regulate her so she might be more palatable for a HWI.

Dal would rather portray Khan as somehow sick and in need of counselling than accept their own sickness in policing a student’s personal Facebook page and demanding that she not use language —again, in her personal domain —that might offend white students.

When, thankfully, Khan refused, as any self-respecting person would and should, Dal ramped up its efforts to intimidate, threaten, punish and discipline her by subjecting her to a formal disciplinary process.

This is when the story became public and the good people of Canada, Halifax, and Dal began to speak out against Dal and for Khan. Under national pressure and to preserve its image, Dal acquiesced and decided to withdraw its complaint against Khan.

If the complaints were so unfounded as to be dropped before any investigation, if she had not violated any code of conduct to begin with, why was Khan subjected to this treatment? Why was she thrust into the national spotlight and rebuked by her institution? And what explains Dal’s bizarre statement that accompanied its complaint withdrawal, in which it selectively quoted Khan to paint her as an aggressor, and then came to a decision without consulting her?

Dal has a lot of explaining and accounting to do; after mistreating, disrespecting, harassing and bullying its own star student, how does it expect us to trust they will do right by Khan?

Well, we don’t trust you, Dalhousie. You must issue a formal apology, and perhaps even a reflective essay. You must offer compensation for treating this exceptionally brilliant and strong student so poorly and abusively, and show us that you’re serious about protecting vulnerable students and challenging institutionalized racism in your institutional structures. Anything short of that is inadequate. Step up. Take responsibility. Get help. You know, all the things you asked Khan to do.

Ayesha S. Chaudhry, Ph.D., is the Canada research chair in religion, law and social justice and associate professor of gender and Islamic studies at the University of British Columbia.